新无神论者把达尔文主义视为几乎可以证伪上帝存在的手段。例如，理查德·道金斯在其著作中将反对"上帝论题"的核心论证概括为六点。他最后指出，如果接受这一论证，那么"宗教的事实前提——上帝假说——是站不住脚的。上帝几乎肯定不存在"（Dawkins, 2006, p.156）。首先，他声称"几个世纪以来，人类智力面临的最大挑战之一，就是解释复杂而不可能的设计外观是如何产生的"，并且"自然的倾向是把设计的外观归因于真正的设计本身。"在阐述其第三和第四点时，道金斯继续写道："这种倾向是错误的，因为设计者假说立即引出一个问题：谁设计了设计者？"在此，道金斯写道：

New Atheists view Darwinism as a means to almost disprove the existence of God. For instance, Richard Dawkins details the central argument against the ‘God thesis’ in his book by summarising it into six points. He concludes by stating that if the argument is accepted ‘the factual premise of religion – the God hypothesis – is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist’ (Dawkins, 2006, p.156). Firstly, he claims that ‘one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design arises’ and that ‘the natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself.’ Elaborating further on his third and fourth points, Dawkins continues, ‘the temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the question of who designed the designer’. At this point Dawkins writes:

达尔文及其后继者已经表明，生物以其惊人的统计学上的不可能性和看似设计的外观，是如何从简单的起点经由缓慢、渐进的过程演化而来的。如今我们可以有把握地说，生物中设计的假象只不过是一种假象（Dawkins, 2006, p.157-8）。

Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that – an illusion (Dawkins, 2006, p.157-8).

对道金斯而言,达尔文"使一个在知识上得到满足的无神论者成为可能"(Dawkins, 1986, p.2)。道金斯承认,物理学领域尚未产生与达尔文进化论相当的理论,但他认为,找到此类等同的宇宙学理论是物理学家的责任。为此,道金斯指出:

For Dawkins, Darwin ‘made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist’ (Dawkins, 1986, p.2). Dawkins admits that the world of physics has not resulted in an equivalent theory of Darwinian evolution, but believes it to be the responsibility of physicists to find such equivalent cosmological theories. To this end Dawkins states:

尽管达尔文主义与无生命的世界——例如宇宙学——未必有直接关联，但它提升了我们在其原本领域生物学之外的许多领域中的觉察（Dawkins, 2006, p.113）。

And although Darwinism may not be directly relevant to the inanimate world – cosmology for example – it raises our consciousness in areas outside its original territory of biology (Dawkins, 2006, p.113).

因此,按照道金斯的说法,正是达尔文一人使无神论者得以对设计论证提出有力的反驳——在道金斯看来,这一论证"简而言之就是创造论者最喜爱的论证"(Dawkins, 2006, p.113)。道金斯认为,提及上帝是多余的,因为"生物要成为现在这个样子,上帝根本无需做任何事情"(Dawkins, 2006, p.118)。由此可见,新无神论者的第一个论点是:达尔文通过进化论有效地推翻了设计者存在的最有力证据。

Therefore, according to Dawkins, it is Darwin and Darwin alone who allows atheists to articulate a cogent case against the argument from design – which is to Dawkins ‘in a nutshell the creationists’ favourite argument’ (Dawkins, 2006, p.113). Dawkins considers reference to God as superfluous as ‘God wouldn’t have to do anything at all’ for living beings to be the way they are (Dawkins, 2006, p.118). Hence, the first argument of the New Atheists is that Darwin effectively disproves the strongest evidence for a designer through evolution.

道金斯的论证在哲学层面已被大量驳斥。在公开辩论中，许多针对道金斯的反驳也已提出。例如，约翰·伦诺克斯（John Lennox）反驳了达尔文进化论与神存在论不相容的观点，他指出："道金斯犯了范畴错误，他把机制与能动性混为一谈"（Fixed Point Foundation，2017，00:30:55）。道金斯自知哲学功底有限，承认他"不是哲学家，这一点很明显"（The Archbishop of Canterbury，2012，00:35:52）。尽管如此，道金斯的结论仍为一些与他同属哲学圈的学者所认同，这些学者视道金斯为"志同道合的同事和同道中人"（Grayling，2014）。

Dawkins’s arguments have been heavily refuted on philosophical grounds. Many such refutations have been made to Dawkins in public debates. For example, John Lennox has refuted the point that Darwinian evolution is incompatible with the God thesis by stating that ‘Dawkins is making a category mistake, he is confusing mechanism with agency’ (Fixed Point Foundation, 2017, 00:30:55). Aware of his own philosophical limitations, Dawkins admits that he is ‘not a philosopher and that will be obvious’ (The Archbishop of Canterbury, 2012, 00:35:52). Nevertheless, Dawkins’s conclusions are shared by some of his philosopher associates who consider Dawkins ‘a colleague and fellow in the cause’ (Grayling, 2014).

A.C. Grayling，我们前面已经看到他与其他“新无神论者”站在一起，他对“上帝命题”提出的论点与道金斯相似，他说：“此外，设计假说是站不住脚的，因为它试图通过援引一个本身未被解释的东西来提供解释”（Grayling, 2013, p.77）。与道金斯类似，Grayling几乎没有花多少时间去回应哲学有神论的常见主张，即为了打破无穷倒退而需要一个“不被引起的起因”；他反而选择援引达尔文主义，作为反驳上帝命题的致命论据。尽管Grayling在许多观点上与道金斯一致，但他的论证略有不同。在谈到宇宙常数的精细调节时，道金斯拒绝把设计者视为合理的解释，他说：“他至少得复杂到足以做到这一点”（The Archbishop of Canterbury, 2012, 01:45:30）。

A.C. Grayling, who we observed associating himself with other ‘New Atheists’, makes similar arguments against ‘the God thesis’ to Dawkins’s, claiming, ‘moreover the design hypothesis is implausible because it purports to offer an explanation by invoking something itself unexplained’ (Grayling, 2013, p.77). Similar to Dawkins, Grayling spends little time engaging with the stock philosophical theistic contentions; namely reference to an ‘uncaused cause’ as being necessary to break the infinite regress, rather, he opts to invoke Darwinism as a fatal argument against the God thesis. Though Grayling is in agreement with much of Dawkins’s claims, his argument differs slightly. In referencing the fine tuning of the universal constants Dawkins rejects the idea of a designer as a reasonable recourse stating ‘he’s got to be at least complicated enough to do that’ (The Archbishop of Canterbury, 2012, 01:45:30).

Anthony Kenny 教授曾主持达金斯与前坎特伯雷大主教罗溫·威廉斯的辩论。他通过区分结构的复杂性与功能的复杂性来追问达金斯。Kenny 举例说明：将电动剃须刀与直刃剃刀相比，并表示“直刃剃刀在设计上更简单，但其功能比电动剃须刀更为复杂”。达金斯回答道：“我真的不明白你在说什么”，牛津大学的听众在背景中笑出声来（The Archbishop of Canterbury，2012，01:56:40）。 鉴于本文用了两页篇幅讨论设计论证，又用了五页讨论托马斯·阿奎那的五路证明，可以有把握地得出结论：达金斯在学术界对经典论证所作的哲学贡献几乎不存在。然而，达金斯的论点却遭到争议，甚至演变为人身攻击式的嘲讽与贬低。为了强调这一点，Alister McGrath 写道，当达金斯谈到：

Professor Anthony Kenny, who chaired the debate with Dawkins and the ex-Archbishop Rowan Williams, probed Dawkins by differentiating between complexity of structure and complexity of function. Kenny presented the example comparing an electric razor with a cut throat razor and stating that ‘the cut throat razor is more simple in design but has more complex powers than the electric razor’ to which Dawkins replied, ‘I really don’t see what you are saying’ as the Oxford university audience laughed in the background (The Archbishop of Canterbury, 2012, 01:56:40). Having dedicated two pages to the design argument and five to Thomas Aquinas’ five ways, it is safe to conclude that Dawkins’s philosophical contribution to academia regarding classic arguments has been virtually non-existent. Nevertheless, Dawkins’s arguments are contested to a point of ad hominem ridicule and degradation. To emphasise this point, Alister McGrath writes that when Dawkins comes to:

每当谈到上帝的话题时，他似乎就进入了另一个世界。那是一个中学生辩论社的世界，充斥着相当激动、热情洋溢的夸大之词，夹杂着一些引人注目的过度简化，以及不时出现的曲解（McGrath, 2007, p.9）。

deal with anything to do with God he seems to enter a different world, it is a world of a schoolboy debating society, relying on rather heated, enthusiastic overstatements, spiced up with some striking oversimplifications and more than occasional misrepresentation (McGrath, 2007, p.9).

这类概括针对的是道金斯公开宣扬的科学主义，以及他对（或他缺乏对）……的忽视或无意识。

Such generalisations relate to Dawkins’s overt scientism, his disregard (or lack of awareness)

……哲学与神学问题（道金斯似乎并不认为神学“是一门学科”（Dawkins, 2006, p.57）。无神论者、哲学家迈克尔·鲁斯教授（Professor Michael Ruse）的态度更进一步，他说道：

of philosophical and theological issues (theology being a subject that Dawkins does not appear to believe is ‘a subject at all’ (Dawkins, 2006, p.57). Professor Michael Ruse, an atheist himself, goes further than this stating:

我写下《上帝的错觉》让我为自己是无神论者而感到羞愧，我是认真的。为了理解上帝怎么可能不需要原因，基督徒声称上帝是必然存在的。我已经努力去理解这意味着什么。

I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it. Trying to understand how God could need no cause, Christians claim that God exists necessarily. I have taken the effort to try to understand what that means.

道金斯及其同伙对此类主张一无所知，甚至对那些哪怕只是试图去理解它们的人也充满轻蔑，遑论相信。因此，他就像一个大一新生那样，洋洋得意地大声发问："是什么造成了上帝？"仿佛他有了什么惊天动地的哲学发现一般（坎特伯雷大主教，2009年）。

Dawkins and company are ignorant of such claims and positively contemptuous of those who even try to understand them, let alone believe them. Thus, like a first-year undergraduate, he can happily go around asking loudly, "What caused God?" as though he had made some momentous philosophical discovery (The Archbishop of Canterbury, 2009).

丹尼特和道金斯一样，嘲笑并回避对古典第一因论证进行充分的阐释与反驳，并主张：

Dennett, much like Dawkins, ridicules and evades a full explication/refutation of the classical first cause arguments claiming:

有些人显然更愿意接受无穷倒退的种种神秘，但在当今这个时代，代价是难以承受的：你必须让自己被欺骗（Dennett, 1995, p.26）。

Some people would much prefer the infinite regress of mysteries, apparently, but in this day and age the cost is prohibitive: you have to get yourself deceived (Dennett, 1995, p.26).

值得注意的是，新无神论者的做法也许是最受批评的一点，即他们从自然科学推进到宗教哲学。对此，麦格拉思指出：

Perhaps the most critiqued aspect of the New Atheist approach is its progression from the natural sciences to religious philosophy. In this regard, McGrath states:

对我而言，真正的问题在于道金斯如何从达尔文的进化论，推进到一种自信的无神论世界观，并且以近乎弥赛亚式的热忱和不容置疑的确定性去宣扬它（McGrath, 2006, p.10）。

The real issue for me is how Dawkins proceeds from a Darwinian theory of evolution to a confident atheistic world-view which he preaches with messianic zeal and unassailable certainty (McGrath, 2006, p.10).

约翰·格雷认为，新无神论者在试图驳倒“上帝假说”时对科学的操弄，是这样的：

John Gray considers the New Atheist manipulation of science in attempting to disprove the ‘God hypothesis’ as:

这是维多利亚时代科学与宗教之间争论的乏味重演。但认为宗教只是一堆已被驳倒的理论的观点，本身也是一种已被驳倒的理论——它是十九世纪实证主义哲学的遗迹（Gray, 2018, p.9）。

A tedious re-run of a Victorian squabble between science and religion. But the idea that religion consists of a bunch of discredited theories is itself a discredited theory - a relic of the nineteenth-century philosophy positivism (Gray, 2018, p.9).

Gray 指出，这些观点与奥古斯特·孔德在《实证主义问答》（1852）中的思想有相似之处（Gray, 2018, p.10）。然而，新无神论超越了实证主义关于无意义或形而上学论述的预设，因为它旨在借助科学来反驳宗教。这种做法受到批评，原因在于它未能审慎区分形而上学自然主义与方法论自然主义，马西莫·皮格柳奇（Massimo Pigliucci）对此写道：

Gray identified similarities between these ideas and those of Auguste Comte in Catchechisme Positiviste (1852) (Gray, 2018, p.10). However, New Atheism transcends positivist assumptions of meaningless or metaphysical discourse as it aims to disprove religion using science. Such an approach has been criticised as it lacks careful distinction between metaphysical and methodological naturalism as noted by Massimo Pigliucci who writes:

关键在于，科学家本质上（按定义而言）就是方法论自然主义者；然而，除了她自己的形而上学观点之外，她并不具有对哲学自然主义的任何特定承诺。换言之，科学并不必然导致无神论，而这正是原教旨主义者所担心的（Pigliucci, 2006, p.2）。

The crucial point here is that a scientist is, essentially by definition, a methodological naturalist; however, she does not have any specific commitment (aside from her own metaphysical views) to philosophical naturalism. In other words, science does not necessarily entail atheism, which is the fundamentalist's fear (Pigliucci, 2006, p.2).

皮格柳奇进一步补充道：

Pigliucci furthers this by adding:

因此，许多科学家本身就是虔诚的宗教信徒，这有其充分的理由。认为两者必然对立，无论从公共关系的角度还是从哲学的角度看，都是一种错误。

There is, therefore, a good reason why many scientists are themselves religious , and it is a mistake (both in terms of public relations and from a philosophical standpoint)

为了将科学世界观呈现为必然导向无神论的样子。科学既无法承受、也不需要与宗教正面对抗（Pigliucci，2006，第2页）。

to present the scientific worldview as if it necessarily leads to atheism. Science can neither afford, nor does it need, a head-on confrontation with religion (Pigliucci, 2006, p.2).

埃利奥特·索伯（Elliott Sober）附和皮格鲁奇（Pigliucci）的观点，他说道：

Elliott Sober echoes Pigliucci stating:

对于一些人来说，牛顿理论和达尔文理论表明世上没有神。然而，这些理论并不是这样说的；这是一种哲学上的诠释，需要额外的前提（Sober, 2009, p.376）。

For some people, Newtonian theory and Darwinian theory suggest that there is no God. However, this is not what these theories say; it is a philosophical interpretation that requires additional premises (Sober, 2009, p.376).